So it's close to $100.00 just to get that initial permit 50 for the permit 38 for the prints....plus ammo....why would anyone do that....?

The section reads:
"(g) The department shall recover the reasonable cost of administering regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, possession, loan, or transfer of ammunition pursuant to this section by charging applicants an initial application fee not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), which shall be valid for two years, and not to exceed fourteen dollars ($14) for the biennial renewal application to include at a minimum, a new application and background check."

So, yes, it is possible the total for the new license could be at $100 or more if the prints run $50 or so. It will work to weed out a lot of casual shooters who just want to do some .22 plinking. And I'm sure this thrills the authors of this bill.

People will simply stock up in high volume when on occasional trips outside of CA - so who benefits from this? Nobody. All this does is reduce revenue to small businesses in CA, and further reduce taxes CA will collect, because CA will be losing purchases to other states on something that people will buy anyway. They'll just do it in bulk, somewhere else. yet another stupid stunt in how CA is driving businesses to leave CA. Hell, I'll be inclined to set up an ammo and reloading shop right across the board in either Nevada or AZ.

It won't stop crime, it won't stop buying of ammo. And it won't stop crime from buying ammo.

In fact, I bet 10-to-1 you will see an INCREASE in the amount of ammo CA people buy (again, all outside of CA) and increase how much they stock-pile, merely because when they do, they will do it in high-volume spending to tide them over until the next need for ammo, or so they don't have to make any little purchases in CA. I know I will. AS it is now I already buy most of my ammo from sources OUTSIDE of CA. Ban my internet puchasing ability, I'll simply buy it all in gobs a few trips to NV or AZ every few months. Regulate ammo purchasing, and I'll be buying NONE in CA - that's one further less trip to buy ammo that I would also spend, say buying gear, optics, cases, gun leaning materials, grips, stocks, parts, whatever at the store where I would have been inclined to buy ammo.

What happens then? Guys with surplus sell off their ammo to "Joe" down the street anyway, who they think is a good neighbor; but little do they know he is a convicted violent felon. More to go around will lead to a "black market" of sorts and an increase in burglaries/theft - where one never existed.

And it will entice an increase in criminals to particularly seek out the homes of suspected gun-owners and shooting-sports enthusiasts of whom they suspect will also have large reserves of ammo DUE to such ridiculous purchase-control laws.

Unintended consequences will be rampant with this one.

We must remember that most gun owners are not motivated shooters.Imagine how long you'd own an Xbox if buying games for it meant driving 6 hours across a state border.

The idea is to make owning a gun such a pain in the a--s that no one bothers to try.Since they cannot explicitly ban guns,they erect barriers to ensure people decide the RKBA is too much trouble.

And then there's next year's legislative session,which will doubtlessly he dedicated to the ending of the evil AMMO LOOPHOLE.......

__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.

The section reads:
"(g) The department shall recover the reasonable cost of administering regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, possession, loan, or transfer of ammunition pursuant to this section by charging applicants an initial application fee not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), which shall be valid for two years, and not to exceed fourteen dollars ($14) for the biennial renewal application to include at a minimum, a new application and background check."

So, yes, it is possible the total for the new license could be at $100 or more if the prints run $50 or so. It will work to weed out a lot of casual shooters who just want to do some .22 plinking. And I'm sure this thrills the authors of this bill.

It will also put a lot of the elderly who want to protect themselves in harms way because they can't afford the extra hundred...a friend of the family's husband just passed away and he was a gun owner, had no ammo or she couldn't find it... one of the two... so she had to go out and get some...if she had to pay that fee it would not have happened...lives in a dicey neighborhood and hard enough to pay for medication....craziness

It will also put a lot of the elderly who want to protect themselves in harms way because they can't afford the extra hundred...a friend of the family's husband just passed away and he was a gun owner, had no ammo or she couldn't find it... one of the two... so she had to go out and get some...if she had to pay that fee it would not have happened...lives in a dicey neighborhood and hard enough to pay for medication....craziness

Good people are going to have to decide when to break the law based on their conscience.

Its a weird feeling that I think a lot of people are going to have to get used to.

Good people are going to have to decide when to break the law based on their conscience.

Its a weird feeling that I think a lot of people are going to have to get used to.

I am sure the courts will be sympathetic to her plight and our forces will find a case to use to represent that injustice. I have hope that many of these onerous bills , the ones that pass into law, will be defeated rather quickly in the courts by injunction and then a trial.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

The bill was amended in the assembly today. They added 6 months to the activation date, but more importantly, removed the ability for a non FFL to order ammo and have it shipped to an FFL for pickup. Now only licensed vendors can buy ammo online, period.

One step closer to an injunction I suppose.

This change is a big deal, but I think even more significant is the automatic denial (as opposed to the previous automatic grant) if the DOJ can't make up their minds about you within 30 days. I don't know what kind of review it would be subject to, but in the worst case scenario, they can deny you the right to exercise a fundamental right if they don't like the way your name sounds or on any other arbitrary and capricious basis.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, SAF Life Member, CCRKBA Life Member

Gavin Newsom is a lying, cheating slickster and will be the worst mistake California has ever made if he gets elected Governor. Hollywood movie producers look to him and his oleaginous persona as a model for the corrupt "bad guy" politician character. This guy is so greasy, he could lubricate an entire arsenal of AR-15s just by breathing on them.

This change is a big deal, but I think even more significant is the automatic denial (as opposed to the previous automatic grant) if the DOJ can't make up their minds about you within 30 days. I don't know what kind of review it would be subject to, but in the worst case scenario, they can deny you the right to exercise a fundamental right if they don't like the way your name sounds or on any other arbitrary and capricious basis.

I agree, the automatic denial is a scary thing. It put the onus on the applicant, not the DOJ.
Just another Right they want to take away

The bill was amended in the assembly today. They added 6 months to the activation date, but more importantly, removed the ability for a non FFL to order ammo and have it shipped to an FFL for pickup. Now only licensed vendors can buy ammo online, period.

One step closer to an injunction I suppose.

Question: Does the amendment say what type of FFL license is required? I guess I can't really expect them to be so stupid to make that mistake, right?

CA may just force some more of us to get 07FFLs and SOTs. The local LEAs will love this since, there will be many more well stocked dealers with NFA items competing for their business. I wonder what Lee would think about being responsible for more AOWs and more cans in CA.

Well my 200,000+ rounds should make me an ammo Barron so how do they expect to stop the reloaders out there.....ban the purchase of lead, gunpowder etc unless you have a permit OMG well guys and girls you got the government you all voted for....soon the bad guys will still be armed and we the "good guys" will be unarmed and vulnerable like the brits and the aussies...now you are really gonna have to wake up America !!! Stand by for the executive order to hand in your weapons by a certain date or face the felony charge...that's how the brits were disarmed.......almost overnight.

Well put and the Brits just rolled over and accepted it as we will. With just a whimper and a snivel.

__________________
California's politicians and government employees are a criminal gang that make the MS 13 gang look like a Boy Scout troop.

This change is a big deal, but I think even more significant is the automatic denial (as opposed to the previous automatic grant) if the DOJ can't make up their minds about you within 30 days. I don't know what kind of review it would be subject to, but in the worst case scenario, they can deny you the right to exercise a fundamental right if they don't like the way your name sounds or on any other arbitrary and capricious basis.

Holy crap, I didn't see that. It removes a right on the presumption of guilt and violates due process so obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoystory

Question: Does the amendment say what type of FFL license is required? I guess I can't really expect them to be so stupid to make that mistake, right?

But if they do... C&R here I come.

Technically, an FFL is not required. A new, CA ammunition vendor license is required, which I presume they will only grant to licensed FFLs.

How I wish we can organize and sabotage their Evil plan. It would be lovely if nobody apply for the permit in the First one or two years if majority of gun owners can stock up ammo at reduced price before then.

******Time for some FCUK SB 53 AMMO price reduction SALES on the forum....

The section reads:
"(g) The department shall recover the reasonable cost of administering regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, possession, loan, or transfer of ammunition pursuant to this section by charging applicants an initial application fee not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), which shall be valid for two years, and not to exceed fourteen dollars ($14) for the biennial renewal application to include at a minimum, a new application and background check."

So, yes, it is possible the total for the new license could be at $100 or more if the prints run $50 or so. It will work to weed out a lot of casual shooters who just want to do some .22 plinking. And I'm sure this thrills the authors of this bill.

It must always be a thrill for our professional legislators to strip the rights of the unwashed masses.

__________________"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?""The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

I for one will not purchase one ammo license. This state will not get a dime from me. I'll take all my cash to Arizona and come back with 1/2 ton of ammo supplies every 3-6 months.

I may need to talk the wife into a twice yearly vacation in Vegas.

__________________"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?""The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

Holy crap, I didn't see that. It removes a right on the presumption of guilt and violates due process so obviously.

Technically, an FFL is not required. A new, CA ammunition vendor license is required, which I presume they will only grant to licensed FFLs.

...and most likely with even more costs and restrictions.

__________________"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?""The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

You correct about workarounds and unintended consequences, but you are wrong about the above. They *want* to hurt certain businesses by making it very expensive and difficult to stay in business: firearms and ammunitions retailers. the fewer they are, the harder it is for us to buy firearms and ammunition and the more expensive it will be. All part of their plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverTauron

We must remember that most gun owners are not motivated shooters.Imagine how long you'd own an Xbox if buying games for it meant driving 6 hours across a state border. The idea is to make owning a gun such a pain in the a--s that no one bothers to try.Since they cannot explicitly ban guns,they erect barriers to ensure people decide the RKBA is too much trouble.

Oh, I was implying the same if by subtext only. Of course that is their goal, make no mistake about that. If it's too much of a hassle, it will kill interest in firearms, as an underhanded usurpation by way of attacking the mechanical aspects of the interest.

__________________-----------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian

What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

Why do some people on this site just freely speak about future loop holes and how they can be closed etc. do you guys like to feed our opposition with stuff like that? Loose lips sink ships.

Following the law as written is not a "loop hole" as is the case with most of these Anti-2nd Amendment bills and laws already on the books, as they do not leave much ambiguity nor omission for a loop-hole to be realized.

Our following of these laws to the letter therefore is not a loop-hole.

__________________-----------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian

What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

Losd619- I haven't purchased ammo in this state for a very long time.
If you truly believe that these politicians don't already know about out of state purchasing then your an idiot.
I refuse to give any more money than I have to to this state which consistently screws me.

You know, I'm not sure what this is going to be like in the future. I already hate it, especially since I became a gun owner this year. To be honest with you, all the news about how California is becoming more restrictive is what motivated me to buy what I have. And buying ammo in bulk and using it at the range was my favorite thing to do. For all you folks who keep saying that you're moving, seriously....go away because I don't care about you. Your opinions are no longer needed here and I don't see how announcing you're leaving California on CalGuns makes things better. For all of you who say that this is just a bump in the road, I really hope you open your eyes a little. It makes sense that the lawmakers make incremental, forward progress to slowly disarm California. I'm new to this and all it took was Google and maybe an hour of my time and sure enough I saw how the freedoms we used to take for granted were slowly being stripped. I will continue to fight and continue to donate money. Although I should donate more to Calguns since I will forever be a California resident and things need to change. I will do my best to fight this and do my best not to let this get under my skin, and unplug from the media every so often. But mostly, I really wish we can be united in the fight. There are too many differences of opinion here and sometimes I wonder why some of you hate other Calgun members when we all are united in that we don't want our right to exercise the 2nd Amendment to be infringed upon. Fight the government, not each other. Put your differences between each other aside, and work WITH each other to help get these bills vetoed. And don't stop fighting.

Do you really believe that you and the other "loose lips sink ships" curmudgeons, are smarter than the Sacto Nazis?

I get what youre saying and there are definitely times that the loose lips thing is overplayed, but I am undoubtedly much smarter than the sacto nazis. Its not brainpower that they have to lord over us, its the brainless zombie voters giving them their brainless nazi power that they lord over us.